Member of the Funny Name Club

December 12, 2009

Question for My Caucasian White Readers (Pedants!)

Why are some of you so afraid of being called (called=labeled in this sense) 'racist' when you know that you aren't?

And careful, Dan Collins. You laugh but some Leftist is going to write a "real" proposal, submit some bogus studies and voilà! Your kid is graduating with a B.S.--and I do mean B.S.--degree in Cablinasian Studies--and you paid for it.

68 Comments

I'm not afraid of being called "racist," Juliette, since I know I am not. But it'll still occur from those who don't understand that it's the IDEAS and POLICIES that I am against, not the man or his skin color.

It's not fear of being *called* a racist, it's fear of being *labeled* a racist. There are social consequences to the label. Being held in opprobrium by "correct" society can cause lots of things to not happen. I live in Silicon Valley, and social attachments are important to job and incoe.

It's not like "The Emperor's New Clothes". One person noticing doesn't bring the entire edifice tumbling down. I'm hopeful that this is something good that will come from the Obama administration. The more people throw around the accusation without basis, the less effect it has. Since any and every disagreement with Obama is labeled racist, they may well wear it out.

My prediction is that precious few people of pallor will cop to being afraid of being called racist. They'll just sit back and be silent, just as they do now when non-racists are pilloried with such labels. They've been indoctrinated into accepting the Original Sin of White Guilt as unconquerably theirs via White Privilege, that logically fallacious doctrine underlying modern "race and gender studies."

My childhood was spent in east Texas, and I'm old enough to remember the 60's and the tail end of Jim Crow and the rise of forced integration, and REAL racism when it was the ingrained societal norm. BS labels tossed by Parlor Pinks who have no other ammo simply don't impress me any.

baldilocks, It isn't fear, it's just a healthy respect for the consequences. If you work for a Fortune 500 company in a right-to-work state, being labeled a racist is going to get you an unpleasant visit to HR, a poor rating, and the beginnings of the process that is going to get you fired. These companies have all instituted mandatory diversity training, and no deviations from the usual company policy of denigrating white men and elevating blacks, Asians, Hispanics, women, and GLBTs will be tolerated.

It's the company that fears it will be branded as tolerating a hostile workplace or even as a company that itself promotes racists and racist views. No company in America today could survive being labeled a racist company, and therefore no company can tolerate employees who are so labeled, either.

He can no longer be accused of shaking down corporations. To do so would be racist.

I'm a "Content of their character" kind of a guy. I dislike racism at a visceral level, whatever form it takes, and I'd stand at the shoulder of anyone fighting real racism. Against anyone. The 'Racist' epithet and label are being used as a wedge to keep the races at one another's throat, in my opinion, because harmony threatens the occupations of so many people. And divisiveness is profitable. So those of us who are clearly not racist will not speak up as a general rule because the "race card" trumps all others, in the courts and in the court of public opinion.

Between Military and Civilian service I have worked for the Federal government must of my adult life. If one is just accused of being a racist, not supporting equal opportunity affirmative action etc. you should consider a career in the private sector, you don‘t have one in the government.

Voltaire tells the story of a British Admiral who was hung for losing a battle despite bravery skill and being outnumbered and unexpected weather. Voltaire said he was pour encourge les autres to encourage the others. This is the attitude in most large organizations about racism complaints.

NOTE: My father was a white officer in a non-white unit during WWII. Except that I knew him, I would not believe the stories he told. They would still make him angry thirty years later. I know there were problems an sometimes still are, but it is a different world and if the sledge hammer solution was ever called for the time is gone.

What upsets me is the overuse of the term, it's misuse (as I attempted to joke with you in my previous post), and it's leftist ideological definition. To me, the overuse and misuse of the term allow the real racists cover. And the ideological definition, in which blacks cannot be considered racist, is dangerous and ridiculous.

I've very rarely used the term myself to label anyone. I've encountered many people who use ethnic and racial stereotypes. Sometimes, it can actually be funny. Often, it's due to ignorance and not meant as harm. In such cases, instead of labeling, I try to inform. But there really are some hate-filled racists who gain pleasure and power from demeaning and suppressing others who are different. That has to be confronted.

What I find even more dangerous though, is that the current most frequent use of the term seems to be ideological and intended to silence opposing political views. Like the real racists I've encountered, hate-filled leftists (in far greater numbers) are gaining pleasure and attempting to gain and hold onto power by demeaning and suppressing others who are different.

The Left, including their politicians, much of the news and entertainment industries, and much of academia and the public schools have been in the process for decades of sedating, dumbing down, and propagandizing the American people.

†

To make a contented slave it is necessary to make a thoughtless one. It is necessary to darken the moral and mental vision and, as far as possible, to annihilate the power of reason.

— Frederick Douglass

†

It has to be stopped.

Thank you for your thoughtful post on this issue, Baldi. You are very smart and have a beautiful spirit.

There are differences between different groups of people. That's sort of why there are different groups. Duh.

But what humans have in common is far more important than the few little things that divide us into groups.

There is within each us that hunger and thirst for God, for Love, for goodness. We may call it different things. And very, very few of us are saints. But when it comes down to it, most of us at least want to be good.

So, let's hang together and help one another achieve that, instead of separating ourselves from one another and calling one another names.

(Except for the really hate-filled ideologues. And the just plain mean people. Especially if they're really loud and large. Those, I don't want to hang together with. You take care of them for us. OK, Baldi?)

Well, we keep our mouths shut and play the game, cede the low ground to the shallow race mongers and pretty much keep on making plans to work, eat, live and grow without giving a second thought to someone's skin color being something that should drive our emotional bus.

Sometimes, silence and going along to get along is the only safe way. I know of a man who was fired from a job for being homophobic. His offense? Refusing a kiss on the lips from a superior male staff member. Nobody came to his assistance. It would have been safer to avoid the scorn, ridicule, expense and firing, and just allow the man to kiss him, wouldn't it?

Like many above, I also don't like being labeled one, but could care less because I know people who I care about know I'm not.

I have done something to stop this. A few months ago, after the wonderful Sydney Poitier (sp?) won a national award, a FB friend of mine (good friend from high school) mentioned how great he looked. I agreed, mentioning that he must be 99 years old now but look no more than 50. Then I jokingly mentioned how jealous I was because black folks don't seem to age.

What I got back was a rant about how my friend didn't know I was a racist and if I can't see beauty in "black folks" then I was blind. I argued back and made my point that 1) it was a joke, and b) I WAS jealous, because most "older" black folks I know (Thomas Sowell, Poitier, Cycely Tyson, Walter Williams (whom I met!), Lou Rawls before he passed, etc.) all look 20-30 years younger than they apparently are. In the end, my friend realized I am NOT a racist.

Now, the racist I lived near in Denver is another story...and she was black. I tried J, I tried...but I couldn't change her.

Yes, Baldi, there is fear. But that fear is not irrational. Individuals have suffered greatly from being wrongly labeled racist or for otherwise being politically incorrect. This is the way a culture works. Groups have rules and punish individuals who break them. In many cases, those rules are essential for protecting and promoting freedom and the human spirit. In this case, the Political Correctness rules have the opposite effect. They enchain. They enslave.

†

It is the eternal struggle between these two principles — right and wrong — throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, "You toil and work and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.

— Abraham Lincoln

†

We cannot merely tell people not to fear when they live in a very rational fear of the retributions they will face for not conforming to the tyranny of PC culture. We can and should offer support, encouragement, and solace, but more importantly, we must stand up and fight the culture that imposes such enslaving rules. We must strike off those chains.

†

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government: of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

— Abraham Lincoln

†

So thank you, Baldi, for reaching out to those who fear, and for speaking out against the chains of Political Correctness. Let us hang together and strike off those chains so that none of us have to live in fear of the tyranny of the Left.

Skimming the comments, I see a lot of the correct topics hit. The one I see missing is the fact that the charge of Racism (c)(r)(tm) is impossible to defend against in some circles, especially those circles which tend to use the charge for strategic advantage.

Amongst the reasonable, such as the Sidney Poitier jest example mentioned above, the Accused can explain and win over a reasonable audience. The first problem is that making such comments puts yo into a position that you have to justify yourself to an arbitrary person in the first place, and the second, as previously mentioned, is that you do so at some significant risk to yourself, and third, the audience to whom you are justifying may not be reasonable.

A big risk is that you never know when those who have appointed themselves to be your jurors have adopted a burden of proof such that you're essentially called upon to prove a negative. For example, the charge is racism, and the evidence brought to bear is perhaps some questioning of motive regarding comments Sidney Poitier aging gracefully. Even if the overt action is explained, the implicit charge of covert, racism is not disposed, and the Accused finds themselves with the impossible burden of proof of proving a negative.

The more people see the charges of Racism(c)(r)(TM) sustained in the absence of any substantial and genuine racist behavior, the greater that fear you mention will be, as the structural advantage accrues to the bringer of charges, who needn't have an actual basis, nor actually prove his case.

I have seen similar "you are called upon to prove a negative" arguments advanced in person, as recently as 2004, regarding slavery reparations. The person in question smoothly ripped through some silky talking points that I wish I could quote verbatim. Their essence was that since Caucasians had benefited from slavery (Oh really? Does the fact that my ancestors lived in Germany at the time have any bearing?) , and continue to benefit from systematic social and economic inequalities (presumably at the expense of minorities), the transfer of wealth and advantage from Oppressor to Oppressed was justified.

To many, this premise seems plausible, and if you accept the premise, it becomes essentially unrebuttable. To demonstrate a case for rejection of that premise requires a lot more effort and words than the presentation of the premise itself.

In fact, this dynamic of imbalance explains the persistence of Nonsense in or society: some false ideas have a sort of succinct, attractive elegance to them that they pass initial sniff tests, and are too uncritically accepted, whereas their penetration and ultimate rejection requires more intellectual rigor and effort. It's a characteristic shared by all of the widely accepted bad ideas: since more people are intellectually slothful than rigorous, how widespread an idea is has less to do with its truth payload, and more to do with its apparent plausibility, with an advantage going to ideas whose difficulty of proving false exceeds the ease of acceptance as true.

I don't know if I'm a racist or not, honestly. I will say that I have had encounters with Mexican people that have made me less than enamored of some of their cultural traits. And I am opposed to illegal immigration. Even so, there are Mexican people I personally like and admire. However, if a Mexican person pisses me off, I tend to assign negative stereotypical traits to him. I think that's just human nature, but maybe I'm wrong.

I kind of thought that to some extent we are all racist because we are animals who like to categorize things.

Tell me, Kwongdzu, have you not had similar encounters/experiences with people of ALL races/ethnicities, including your own? I know I sure have. That doesn't make me a racist, unless you want to claim that absolutely everyone who notices cultural differences and doesn't find them all inherently superior to their own culture is automatically a racist. (Note that this too is part of the corrupt core philosophy underlying "critical race theory" in today's universities.)

Here, a dictionary definition of racism:

noun

[1] The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability AND that a particular race is superior to others.

After reading all the comments above, I think I have just one or two points to make.

First, I've met very few out-and-out public "racists" (of any color) during my adult life. Since I'm sixty years old, that covers quite a bit of territory. Our society, as it currently is, DOES place a certain premium on "manners", which means that even if you don't like someone because of their skin color, you certainly don't say so.

Secondly, as Buford and others noted above, if you're white, wearing the label of "racist" can and does affect income and social interaction - especially if you live in a "PC" section of the country, such as San Jose, CA.

How do I know this? I lived and worked in Mountain View, San Jose, Sunnyvale, and Palo Alto for thirty-plus years. I never bought into the "white guilt" thing, and made no secret of my non buy-in, and it cost me at least one substantial rise in income.

So yes, being labeled "racist" can cost you.

I still don't mind looking at myself in the mirror every morning while I'm shaving. I can't say that I like the wrinkles or the gray in the hair, but I do like the guy behind the eyes.

Sorry you crossed out Caucasian, Baldi -- my mom's side of the family is actually from the Caucasus region!

I will speak for myself and say that being labelled racist (which has happened to me once or twice in my career as a teacher, sadly) embarrasses me greatly. The times that it has happened -- that I have been accused of such -- I have offered to tender my resignation immediately. In both cases, my accusers backed off, and we were able to communicate more civilly.

People above have already explained why it's a problem in the real world.

Within the context of the blogging world it functions as a "Shut Up". Most blogs won't allow "racist" comments and an elastic definition of racism permits a blog owner to delete/ban any sort of race discussion he is uncomfortable with.

Of course blog owners already have the power to regulate comments on their blog, but this way they can pose as opposing the Klan while doing it.

And it works the same for bloggers themselves. The Talmudic scholars going over RS McCains words have, for the most part, the goal of shutting him out of the world of respectable blogs. They've had some success too.

After thinking on it, it occurred to me what I find unredeemingly repugnant. It is cultural. I don't like those cultures I see as misogynistic. That explains why I like some individuals with ethnic ties to those cultures; they embody only the positive aspects.

And Tully, to answer your question, yes I have - but not to the same extent or frequency as I experienced when living in one particular area where the migrant population was large. I don't know about you, but when I'm going about my day minding my own business, I don't enjoy being harrassed by strangers. I don't appreciate being followed or hit on or having crude comments hollered at me. It tarnished my attitude some, yes.

Baldi, the fear sometimes does not come from God. In these cases, it comes from seeing actual adverse consequences after the false charge is made, and seeing so many people be silent after the false charge is made. That is, it comes from seeing that people who are not PC are successfully silenced and shunned. I think this is true far to much of the time. It is a shameful aspect of society. But this is how groups act, nearly all groups of people punish and or shun those who break their rules.

†

The nail that sticks out
is hammered in.
— Japanese Proverb

†

As a non-conformist, individual thinker, and otherwise very odd person myself, I have personally experienced this group behavior many, many times. I don't agree with such group behavior, nor participate in it, but I do see it happening. In many ways, our constitution and form of government is set up to protect the individual from such group activity. However, it does so only when the group attempting to force conformity is a function of government, not when it is a private family, group of "friends" or associates, or neighbors.

However, I'm thinking that there are at least some times that the fear is not so much fear, but guilt, and that might indeed come from God.

No matter how much we try to silence it, there is in each of us a tiny little whispering voice that speaks to us of right and wrong. It may not be in words, but in that hint of guilt we may feel if we even think of saying or doing something wrong.

And the group instinct to identify with people who superficially look like, talk like, and behave like you, while attacking or avoiding those who don't, is a very compelling force. It's apparently quite difficult to overcome. And it seems far too rare, at least t me, that individuals reach out to those who are different, face the risk of being punished by their "peer group," and push back. To me, this is an admirable quality.

And this is why I much admire such people.

And that includes you, Baldi.

So, thank you very much for following that little voice inside yourself, and not following the crowd.

While I'm not speaking for everyone in academia, the charge of racism--deserved or not--is a death knell for the non-tenured.

You see, perceived racism is considered to be part of the conservative mind-set by the progressive academic hierarchy, and so when ridiculous charges of racism are levied against, let's say, *Huckleberry Finn*, the wise non-tenured professor will just keep her mouth shut, or better yet, join in the criticism.

Ironically, the institution of tenure may be the saving grace for academia. If more free-thinking conservative/libertarian faculty gain that status, tenure may be the one thing that can keep them safe.

When labeled a racist, one is being charged in the Court of Public Opinion and Perception and one knows there will be no satisfactory defense. There is no recourse, other than to say, "I'm not racist". How does one prove they are not?

People can not even use their own long time friendships and life experiences with people of other races as a defense... "I have Black friends, Asian friends, American Indian friends"....

Because, even that defense has been turned into an attack over the years..."don't even bother pulling the 'I have black friends' card, that's what all racists say".

Many of us out here in the world do have friends of many races and cultures. I choose not to be color blind. I choose not to close my eyes to skin color, because it's my opinion that being color blind also allows one to be culture blind.

A true racist may have interactions with those of other races, but they do not draw them into the inner folds of their lives and cherish them as dearly as family. Yet, we are not allowed that simple defense, that shows through our past and current relationships that we do not hate based on differences of skin and culture.

And if one of those dear friends of another race chooses to speak up for you and defend you, their words will carry no weight. If it is a person of color who makes the charge, the dear friend will be demeaned as "being white", an "Uncle Tom" and therefore not "racy" enough to weigh in on the matter.

If the person making the accusation is white, then that dear friend who speaks up for you will still not matter. Because, now, the only witnesses who count will be those who have white skin, as we are being charged in the court of white society.

How does one win, when it is your own 'people' accusing you of being racist, despite those you are supposedly being racist against standing up for your character and denying the charge?

Another defense that is not allowed is the possibility that the person either said something out of ignorance, misspoke, or did not misspeak but the remark was perceived by the other person as being something that it was not intended to be, etc. If you attempt to explain, or to clear their misperception then one hears the other overused attack..."well, you wouldn't have said something like that if you weren't 'subconsciously' racist"....so, now we are labeled a racist, who just didn't know we were racist, until someone was kind enough to enlighten us.

It's become the one accusation in society, that one just cannot fully and satisfactorily defend. How does one prevail, when all bases of defense have been covered in advance by those who level the charge? If you don't protest enough, you are guilty. If you protest too much and attempt to defend, you are guilty.

I have never been fearful of the label, but it has offended me the few times I have had it turned towards me as a weapon. Offended me because a) I do not like baseless character assassination of any sort and b) for every instance the 'racist' card is played, a true instance of racism is receiving a pass.

In these times, people are beginning to not even try to defend the charge. As you stated in your post, resentment is building at the abuse of the accusation and the crutch it has become to those who wish to win, by any means.

The charge of racism is gradually being turned into "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". At some point, it will be just another empty word, and that in itself will begin a whole new set of trouble in race relationships.

Late to the party again... Not an iota of "fear" from these white (hind)quarters, because the charge is so completely ludicrous... I know I am not in the least bit racist, and that is all that matters to me. I do instead tend to judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin (hmmm... someone should try using that line on a national stage someday... it might even stick).

In fact, the charge of "Racist!" itself has become a sign of intellectual surrender, akin to Godwin's Law. Even oblique references not directed at me (Carter's assertion that opposition to Obama was inherently racist for example... before he went out and said a week later that he never said it). To those on FB that agreed with his assertion I merely thanked them for acknowledging that they had automatically lost the discussion by following President Peanut down the low road. That really tends to piss them off even more, which is yet another plus. :)

I do think things will continue to get ugly as those defending our "post-racial President" by hurling the epithet are more often met with the same laughter and derision. They'll just scream it louder and louder as that's all they've got... and things will eventually explode.

OK, I started early and am coming in again. Having read through the comments above (except for the tediously long ones), it appears that almost everyone agrees that there are real world consequences to being called racist. There appears to be no easy way to fix it. Standing up and arguing often just makes things worse. As to the term "racist" losing its power, I still see that as a good thing overall. The anti-social behavior of the true racist will just have to be labeled some other way.

Hopefully, our society is working its way out of this fever swamp, but it certainly isn't happening rapidly enough.

If you notice, and comment, that someone has a skin color different from yours, or an accent that's different from yours, or the shape of the eyes are different from yours, even if you've said NOTHING else that might possibly be construed as "racist" and IF your skin is white?

Well then! To paraphrase a certain well-known Southern Comedian... "You Might Be A Racist!"

I try to behave. I really do. I'm afraid that upon occasion, I fail miserably.

Unless and until the abusive race-mongers are willing to give up the power they derive from its use, I think we are reduced to quietly complaining amongst ourselves.

The horrible injustices of slavery were challenged and removed by the racial/intellectual peers of the oppressors. Indeed, those in control are by definition the ones most able to set things right. It took a lot of good men with the power to do right and the willingness to act. Slavery didn't just die out from disinterest. It was pried out forcibly and at great cost.

(Another reason to celebrate America's inherent inner compass. It leads us back to Truth.)

For the same righteous reasons, but in nowise the same scale, abusive race-mongers and their disingenuous ideals must be challenged by and removed by their racial/intellectual peers. Why? Because they are in control of the conversation. As long as their peers allow them to remain unchallenged in their control and limning of the innocent, I don't think it will go away.

I send a question back at your original question Baldilocks: Is it possible that fear of being thus labeled is actually breeding racism? I have wondered about this for some time, seeing a younger generation grow up who have lived their entire lives walking the minefield of possible accusations of racism. It almost seems many have learned to "game the system" - give appropriate responses where needed, without ever really challenging their own human tendency to cast aspersion through stereotype. The one thing that heartens me about this situation is that it seems to cut both ways. Most of the particular instances I can think of have occurred in private settings involving nieces and nephews and their friends free from the constraints of their campus lives. Their humor often makes me flinch - despite the very diverse mix of the group and the easy going manner in which a black, or latin, or asian, or white member of the group so effortlessly cuts and parries against the others using the most crass stereotypes you might imagine were commonplace in the 1930s. It makes me wonder for the future: will the "private personas" become public norm, or will the current oppressive public stance still persist?

The reason it's a problem to be labeled racist is because stupid people have power and can hurt you. There's no finer example in recent years than this one. Please watch the whole thing.

A student/janitor at IUPI was found guilty of racial harrassment (through a farcical procedureless process) for reading a book about how Notre Dame students defeated the Klan in a violent confrontation in 1924. It was an anti-Klan book, it was on the shelves at the university library, it's sold on Amazon, he was minding his own business reading silently on his break. Yet one stupid (in this case, black) employee was able to get him tarred and feathered and branded a racial "harasser" for reading a scholarly work regarding a true historical incident - at a college, no less. Of course, the stupid employee had the help of the equally, or more so, stupid college administration. She couldn't have done it by herself. But the point is, she was stupid. Too stupid to understand the concept that he was reading a book that was celebrating a setback for the Klan. And yet she still had the power to ruin his life, both personally and academically. If that doesn't make you think twice about swallowing your principles and going along to get along you're not paying attention.

I'm not saying you should. I would wish we all had the courage to stand up for what's right in that situation. The person in the story above did and eventually he was given an apology, but it was a long, hard and ridiculous road he had to travel to get there based on one accusation by a moronic co-worker.

I think things are changing, though - if slowly. I think more and more people are laughing openly at charges of racism when it's patently ridiculous. I, too, think the existence of the Obama administration will ulitmately help in that regard because more and more people will realize charges of racism are a crutch used by too many people as a means to "win" an argument. The sooner it loses it's force as a be-all-and-end-all the better. Then we get back to actually pursuing Martin Luther King's dream of judging people by the content of their character. It's a good system.

Wow...I'm shocked to even read the question. And I'm thrilled! =) I actually consciously TRY to not feel fear of being labeled a racist. Because I know I'm not and I'm not one who generally is afraid to speak her mind about things. I think I've had some commenters on my blog make the lame counter argument against a post I've made that I'm obviously a racist. I pretty much think it's the tool of a small mind.

Look at how quickly, completely, and on such small pretexts Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro were taken down during the Presidential campaign. If that can happen to them, worse can happen to us ordinary people. Fear? To quote Sarah Palin, "You betcha!"

I may have posted this here before, but it shows the origins and abuses of charges of racism.

From "American Communism in Crisis, 1943-1957," by Joseph Starobin, then-foreign editor of the American edition of the Daily Worker.

in the name of defying the witchhunt against them, the American Communists complemented it by engaging in a witchhunt of their own...

Not a few have asked themselves: if they were capable of such cruelties to each other when they were a small handful of people bound by sacred ideals, what might they have done if they had been in power?...Words like "whitewash" were deemed chauvinism in reverse. The term "black sheep" was deemed chauvinistic in its essence...Both whites and blacks began to take advantage of the enormous weapon which the charge of "white chauvinism" gave them to settle scores, to climb organizational ladders, to fight for jobs and to express personality conflicts...

Even the great Dalton Trumbo got scorched in that witchhunt. He was severely criticized by his fellow Communists for, among other things, writing a description of a Negro boy as "polished and dressed in his very best" because that implied he was clean only on special occasions. See "Red Star over Hollywood" by Ronald Radosh. You can read most of the incident over at Amazon with "search inside".

Now that I'm retired the lable is harmless. Before I retired it cost me money, time and opportunity. It did not matter how baseless an accusation was, when it went into my jacket it stayed there, even the unfounded ones. Come time for a promotion or a transfer, the brass would look, there is Peter with X number of allegations, there is Jones with only S number. Best not take the chance, give Jones the promotion. Now the brass never cared that Peter spent twelve years working the black area of the county while Jones had his whole career in whitebread city, it was the pure number of allegations.

So, if I worked among the folks of the other race all the time and got .0000012 allegations per contact whle Jones, in whitebread city hardly ever dealt with people of color but got like .075 allegations per contact My raw number was still higher.

So, instead of working in that area, I started agitating for a transfer to whitebread city, too.

It is an interesting question.
I always worry that I will be called a racist, but I figure I will be called a racist no matter what i say, so might as well say what I am saying with full confidence that it is right and correct.

Some of the greatest people in history were 'racists'
George Washington, Thomas Edison, Thomas Jefferson, Well, pretty much every last person who signed the Declaration of Independence, Ratified the Constitution of the United States of America, every last Supreme Court member up until 1960s and pretty much every last conservative one since, including Clarence Thomas. So, racists are in good company in my book.

Because I am aware of the racism where I grew up, I avoid being racist.

But because I am lower class, I don't feel "white guilt", because like most ethnic Americans I too have been the victim of both prejudice (prior to 1970 when my gender and religion were held against me) and "reverse discrimination" (after 1970 when I lost a scholarship because money was diverted to correct prior discrimination).

I've had this discussion a few times, and there is an angle I haven't seen really explored, and its the different perception people have of the charge based on their color.

White people have, over the years, really absorbed the idea that racist = evil. Black people, in my experience, don't think this way, and they will call someone racist that they wouldn't call evil -- but when they do, the white person doesn't just hear, "you are racist," they hear, "you are evil."

Again, its just my experience, but black people tend to treat the word in a very cavalier way, while for most white people, racist = nazi = evil.

I'll admit that I don't like the odd feeling of alienation I get when I'm called a racist, which happens from time to time on the internet when "things get hot". I try to avoid "racial" threads, but sometimes I work up the nerve to wade in, and almost always regret it when the poop hits the fan.

Basically, when the "racist card" is played, it behaves as any other ad-hominem attack and any interesting discussion ends.

It was more than just the American inner compass. Liberty gifted from God to all men was spelled out explicitly in the Declaration of Independence. Without that, there would have been no Emancipation (not then), American inner compass or no.

This fact is what makes Obama's blather about "original sin" so stupid. It's more like original redemption.

In order for me to be saying the victims of the race-baiters are at fault because they are not fighting back, I would actually had to have said this.

Any inference of fault in my exhortation to fight back exists only in the minds of those who are automatically looking to conjure it, whether it actually exists or not; in other words, those who assume bad faith as a matter of course. And that--the volitional act of assuming bad faith--is your fault. (See how that works? I actually said what I meant.)